RE: value semantics

Hi Erik.

I agree that the iCal standard is not the best one out there and just
used it as an example of a standard that has an analogous problem around
base systems.  :-)

I do think that if there are different systems for positioning in
different parts of the world we should plan for that otherwise it will
be doomed to be a "standard" that is only used in certain places and not
globally.  

I believe we are pushing for this particular geo API to be something
that is adopted across cultures and locations in the world so I would
strongly advise we think about this now...

Thanks.

Chris 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-geolocation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Erik Wilde
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:35 PM
To: public-geolocation@w3.org
Subject: value semantics


hello chris.

> If we build this in the sites that care about it will follow the
> standard.  Especially, if there are well documented translation
> algorithms...

not that the details of this are important for this list, but i think 
the design of the iCal standard is a bad one. here is where it defines a

date http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2445#section-4.3.4 and this does not 
say anything about a calendar type or that the semantics of the date 
might change based on an optional parameter or even future versions of 
the standard. on the other hand, it references iso 8601, which i think 
hardcodes the gregorian calendar as the way how dates should be 
interpreted. i think this is not a robust design, but this comment is 
based on my 10min examination of iCal, so i might be (and almost hope to

be) wrong.

but it is important to be clear amount the semantics of values, and 
reference systems for measurement values clearly are part of that.

cheers,

dret.  UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 22:55:11 UTC